Crimes Against Property

discussed by: Judge Cesar Pabel D. Sulit

Press Enter to start…
Robbery

Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery. - Any person who, with intent to
gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means
of violence or intimidation of any person, or using force upon
anything shall be guilty of robbery.
Question:
What are the elements of the crime?
Answer:
1. Intent to gain (animus lucrandi)
2. Unlawful taking
3. Personal property as subject matter
Question:
Distinguish “robbery” VERSUS “theft”?
Answer:
Robbery VS theft
Two ways one way
1. By violence or intimidation by stealth or strategy
2. By force upon thing
Question:
Distinguish “robbery” versus “coercion”?
Answer:
Robbery VS coercion

With intent to gain NO intent to gain

Exercise:
Tell me if it is robbery or it is coercion:
1. The accused took away the bolo of another to prevent the latter from
continuing to cut down the pine trees.___________________
2. I forcibly took away your cellphone believing that your cellphone is
mine.___________________
3. I wrestled with you to take your Samsung Cellphone because my
Iphone got lost and I needed a cellphone to take the online midterm
exam now.___________________
4. Pedro destroyed the locker to get the love letter of Juan, which Pedro
used such letter to force Juan to do Pedro’s
homework.______________
Answers:
1. Coercion
2. Coercion
3. Robbery
4. coercion (see People vs Cho Chock 50OG1667)
Question:
Robeen Pudillo robbed RCBC branch in LP Leviste Street
in Makati. He took 10 Million pesos in said bank. But,
being robinhood of tondo, he gave all the 10 Million
pesos to the poorest of the poor in tondo to help them
during the COVID quarantine and NEVER pocketed any
amount for himself. He was caught by the police later.
Can he argue that there was no animus lucrandi and
therefore could not be charged of robbery? Should he
be charged only of coercion?
Answer:
This is robbery! There is “intent to gain” in the form of the power “to
appropriate and to dispose”. He enjoyed the pleasure of giving away
the money.

See People vs Sia Teb Ban 54Phil52

G.R. No. L-31695 November 26, 1929
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
SIA TEB BAN (alias JUAN TONINO, alias JUAN ANTONIO, alias PEDRO ANTONIO), defendant-
appellant.

“But it has been proved that he took the watch

described in the information without the owner's consent,
having been overtaken a few moments later by a friend of
the offended party, who found the stolen watch on the
appellant. It is alleged that animus lucrandi has not been
proved. We find it sufficiently established, as the acts of the
accused (one's intention may be gathered from one's deeds)
unequivocally show.”
 Joy Ride
Question:
Suppose I took your bicycle for a “joy ride” by
forcibly destroying the chain attached to it.
After an hour, I returned the same. But the
police were already there waiting for me and
arrested me. Can I be held criminally liable for
robbery/theft?
Answer:
Two views!
1. No! reason: the taking must be to permanently deprive the owner
thereof;
See People vs Galang CA43OG577; People vs Rico CA50OG3103;People vs Roxas
CAGRNo14953oct31,1956
2. Yes! Reason: mere temporary possession by the offender or
disturbance in the proprietary right of the owner is already
considered unlawful taking.
See People vs Fernandez CA38OG985;People vs Martisano CA48OG4417
Our verdict:
Apply #2 view being the latest ruling!

See People vs Bustinera GR No.148233 June8,2004

G. R. No. 148233 June 8, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,
vs.
LUISITO D. BUSTINERA, appellant.

Appellant assails the trial court’s conclusion that there was intent to
gain with the mere taking of the taxi without the owner’s consent. He
maintains that his reason for failing to return the taxi was his inability to
remit the boundary fee, his earnings that day not having permitted it; and
that there was no intent to gain since the taking of the taxi was not
permanent in character, he having returned it.

Appellant’s position does not persuade.

Intent to gain or animus lucrandi is an internal act, presumed from the

unlawful taking of the motor vehicle.51 Actual gain is irrelevant as the
important consideration is the intent to gain.52 The term "gain" is not merely
limited to pecuniary benefit but also includes the benefit which in any other
sense may be derived or expected from the act which is performed.53 Thus,
the mere use of the thing which was taken without the owner’s consent
constitutes gain.54
Question:
Pedro borrowed the laptop of Juan who went to the United States and
to stay there for 1 year. While Pedro was doing his homework, Carlos
at a gunpoint, took away the laptop from Pedro although owned by
Juan. Carlos was arrested but he claims that the charge of robbery
should be dismissed for reason that ownership cannot be established
because Juan could not appear to testify on that matter. Is his
argument correct?
Answer:
No! as long as the offender is NOT the owner, he can be charged with
robbery. Mere possession of a property not belonging to him is
enough!

see US vs Albao 29phil86

[G.R. No. 9369. December 24, 1914. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEJANDRO ALBAO, Defendant-
Appellant.

3. ID. OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY TAKEN. — In the commission

of the crime of robbery it is not necessary that the person
from whom the property is taken, by means of threats and
violence, shall be the owner. It is sufficient that the property
is taken from him by means of threats and violence, for the
purpose of gain. The possession of the property is sufficient.
Ownership is not necessary. Robbery may be committed
from a bailee or from a person who himself has stolen it.
Even the owner of property may be guilty of robbery. For
instance, when he takes it from the possession of a bailee
with the intent to charge the bailee with its value.
Question:
Pedro at a gunpoint took 1 kilo of marijuana from Juan. Can Pedro be
charged with robbery?
Answer:
Yes! Reason: illicit article may be subject of robbery

See US vs Sani Lim 23Phil404

Question:
What if in robbery, there are 1. violence or intimidation AND 2. force
upon thing, what should be the proper crime? Article 295 or Article
299-303?
Answer:
Latest ruling: it is COMPLEX CRIME under Article 48 of the RPC

See Napolis vs Court of Appeals 43SCRA301

G.R. No. L-28865 February 28, 1972
NICANOR NAPOLIS, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

We deem it more logical and reasonable to hold, as We do,

when the elements of both provisions are present, that the crime is
a complex one, calling for the imposition -- as provided in Art. 48 of
said Code -- of the penalty for the most serious offense, in its
maximum period, which, in the case at bar, is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period. This penalty should, in turn, be imposed in its
maximum period -- from nineteen (19) years, one (1) month and
eleven (11) days to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal — owing
to the presence of the aggravating circumstances of nighttime. In
short, the doctrine adopted in U.S. v. De los Santos7 and applied
in U.S. v. Manansala,8 U.S. v. Turla,9 People v. Baluyot, 10 Manahan v.
People, 11 and People v. Sebastian, 12 is hereby abandoned and
appellant herein should be sentenced to an indeterminate penalty
ranging from ten (10) years, and one (1) day of prision mayor to
nineteen (19) years, one (1) month and eleven (11) days of reclusion
temporal.
Question:
Can there be no robbery but only theft even if there was force upon
thing?
Answer:
Yes! As long as no doors or windows broken to enter building or no
doors or wardrobe broken while inside building. It is theft not
robbery.

See people vs Adorno 40OG567

He merely destroyed chicken coop to get chicken
Question:
I rob house #1, then proceed to house #2 then proceed to house #3,
how many robberies did I commit?
Answer:
Three (3)! Reason: People vs Bays L5190 and 5193
Question:
I passed by the group of Pedro, Matthew and Mark, then I robbed all of
them of their cellphones. How many crimes did I commit?
Answer:
Only one! See People vs Mondig CA GR No.1756 Dec14,1948 and
People vs Dela Cruz L1745May23,1950
Penalty for robbery w/violence
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. - Any person
guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the
crime of homicide shall have been committed.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua when the
robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on
occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263
shall have been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery accompanied with rape is
committed with a use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death (As amended by PD No. 767).
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the
physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding
paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium
period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have
been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when the
course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its
commission any of the physical injuries covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 23.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period in other cases. (As amended by R. A. 18).
Question:
Is robbery with homicide, a complex crime?
Answer:
No! it is a special complex crime with a single indivisible crime under
Article 294 of the RPC.
Question:
What if I kill first, then, as I saw his Rolex watch while lying on the
ground, I took his watch. What crime did I commit?
Answer:
Two! One homicide/murder and one theft

See People vs Elizaga GR2487 86phil364

G.R. No. L-2487 May 18, 1950
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
RICO ELIZAGA, FELIPE LOZADA, Jr., and ELIEZER TOLENTINO, accused-appellants.

“The uncertainty as to the motives does not however lessen the conviction that
the defendants slew the deceased. It does not shake Rafael Calavia's
testimony. Its only effect is to change the qualification of the crime form the
complex crime of robbery with homicide, as charged, to two separate, simple
crimes of homicide and theft. Giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt,
we find them guilty of the latter crimes independent of and unrelated to each
other.”

Furthermore, the SC said:

“The taking of the deceased's bag constitutes either robbery or theft,

according as force was used in the taking, distinct from the force employed in
the killing, or the intent to carry away the bag was formed after the priest
was killed. The evidence on this feature of the case is also uncertain with the
result that, again, we have to adopt the theory which is more favorable to
the defendants.”
Question:
In the course of robbing the bank, Mat Demon killed the security guard
Pedro, customer Juan and bank teller Jane. How many crimes did
Mat commit?
Answer:
Only one! Robbery with homicide. Number of persons killed is
immaterial.

See People vs Baruga 61Phil318

Question:
If treachery is present, what is the proper term “robbery with
homicide” or “robbery with murder”?
Answer:
“robbery with homicide” only even if there is aggravating circumstance
to constitute the crime of murder.

Basis: People vs Enot,et.al. G.R. No. L-17530 October 30, 1962

G.R. No. L-17530 October 30, 1962
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CAUSIANO ENOT and PABLO VIÑALON, defendants-appellants.

“The crime committed, that of robbery with multiple homicide and

physical injury, is aggravated by treachery, in that the accused took
advantage of nighttime to cover up their movements and commenced attack
on their victims at a time when the latter, unaware of their approach and
their intention, were in no position to offer any defense (People vs. Pengzon,
44 Phil. 224, 234; People vs. Palomo, 43 O.G. No. 10, 4190); by the use of
superior strength and disregard of the sex and age of the victims, the latter,
with the exception of Macario Conje, all being women, one only five years
old, another, a minor, and the third, a seven-month old baby (People vs.
Medina, 71 Phil. 383); by evident premeditation, in that prior to the crime,
they had conspired to rob the house of Macario Conje an to assault and
attack the occupants thereof if necessary better accomplish their purpose
(People vs. Galang & Guzman, 73 Phil. 184, 198-200); and by dwelling,
consisting in the violation of the privacy of the home of the deceased
Macario Conje and his family (People vs. Manuel, 44 Phil. 333, 340; People
vs. Bautista, 79 Phil. 653, 657; People vs. Gonzales, 76 Phil. 473, 480).”
Question:
If I accidentally killed a man during the robbery, am I still liable for
robbery with homicide?
Answer:
Yes. See People vs Magulabnan 52OG6532
[G.R. No. L-8919. September 28, 1956.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AGUSTIN MANGULABNAN, et.al.

It may be argued that the killing of Vicente Pacson undertaken by one of the 2 unidentified persons
who climbed up a table and fired at the ceiling, was an unpremeditated act that surged on the
spur of the amount and possibly without any idea that Vicente Pacson was hiding therein, and
that the English version of Article 294, No. 1, of the Revised Penal Code, which defines the
special, single and indivisible crime of robbery with homicide only punished any persons guilty of
robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person, with the penalty of
reclusion perpetua when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall
have been committed, but this English version of the Code is a poor translation of the prevailing
Spanish text of said paragraph, which reads as follows:

“1. ° Con la pena de reclusion perpetua a muerte, cuando con motivo o con ocasion del robo
resultare homicidio.”

We see, therefore, that in order to determine the existence of the crime of robbery with homicide
it is enough that a homicide would result by reason of on the occasion of the robbery (Decision of
the Supreme Court of Spain of November 26, 1892, and January 7, 1878, quoted in 2 Hidalgo’s
Penal Code, p. 267 and 259-260, respectively). This High Tribunal speaking of the accessory
character of the circumstances leading to the homicide, has also held that it is immaterial that
the death would supervene by mere accident (Decision of September 9, 1886; October 22,
1907; April 30, 1910 and July 14, 1917), provided that the homicide be produced by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, inasmuch as it is only the result obtained, without reference or
distinction as to the circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of
the crime, that has to be taken into consideration (Decision of January 12, 1889 — see Cuello
Calon’s Codigo Penal, p. 501-502).
Note:
In effect, even if NO intent to commit homicide, it is still robbery with
homicide. Article 294 of the RPC states:

“1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by

reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have
been committed.”
Question:
Robbery plus homicide plus rape. How many crimes did I commit?
Answer:
Only one! “robbery with homicide”, rape as aggravating circumstance

See People vs Bacsa 104 phil 136 and People vs Tapales 93SCRA135
[ GR No. L-35281, Sep 10, 1979 ]
PEOPLE v. JESSIE TAPALES Y VARGAS

This Court's consistent ruling, therefore, which holds that when

Rape and Homicide co-exist in the commission of Robbery, it is
paragraph 1 of Article 294 which applies, the Rape to be considered
as an aggravating circumstance (People vs. Ganal, et al., 85 Phil. 743
(1950); People vs. Carillo, 85 Phil. 611 (1950); People vs. Bacsa, 104
Phil. 136 (1958); People vs. Tarrayo, 27 SCRA 953 (1969); People
vs. Mongado, 28 SCRA 643 (1969)), should be upheld, for a settled
judicial construction put upon a statute has almost the same
authority as the statute itself, and this Court will not disregard or
overrule it except for the most cogent reasons.[9]
Question:
During robbery, Pedro killed Juan and Matthew. How many cases
should be filed against Pedro?
Answer:
Only 1! Robbery with homicide, killing of the other person as
aggravating.

See People vs Pedroso 115SCRA599

G.R. No. L-32997 July 30, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANICETO PEDROSO and AGUSTIN SALCEDO, accused-appellants.

There is no special complex crime of robbery in band with double

homicide and/or serious, less serious or slight physical injuries under the
present Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 373. If robbery with homicide
(or with the other crimes enumerated above) is committed by a band, the
indictable offense would still be denominated as "robbery with homicide"
under Article 294 (1), but the circumstance that it was committed by a band
is not an element of the crime but is merely a generic aggravating
circumstance which may be offset by mitigating circumstances. 35 The
homicides or murders and physical injuries, irrespective of their numbers,
committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged in the
composite crime of "robbery with homicide." However, where two or more
persons were killed on the occasion of robbery, the additional killing should
be appreciated further as an additional aggravating circumstance, the reason
being that "there will obtain an anomalous situation where, from the
standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be
on the same level as robbery with multiple killings." 36
Question:
Robbers killed one of their own members. Should the robbers be
charged with robbery with homicide?
Answer:
Yes. See People vs Manulanan 99phil992
Question:
Is there robbery with attempted rape?
Answer:
None. See people vs Cariaga 54OG1307 (1958)
Question:
Can the rape victim pardon the robber in robbery with rape?
Answer:
No. reason: not a private crime.

See People vs De Guzman 70phil23.

Note: with more reason with the amendment of the Law making rape as
public crime
Question:
The intention was to commit robbery, but he raped the victim first
then commit the robbery. How many crimes are committed?
Answer:
Only one! Robbery with rape pa rin!

See People vs Carrastre 82phil482

Question:
He wanted to rape her, but the victim resisted. So, the accused just
grabbed the necklace and left. How many crimes are committed?
Answer:
Two crimes! Attempted rape PLUS robbery!

See People vs Buena CA 52OG4698

Question:
Is there robbery with less serious physical or slight physical injuries?
Answer:
None! Reason: simple robbery par 5 of Article 294. injuries are
absorbed

Note: if serious physical injuries, then special complex crime na ito!(see

Article 295 par2)
Standby for the next slide presentation…